yet nixon's election, assassination of mr. king and bobby kennedy. you had democratic party's wild convention in chicago. so a lot of books on 68, woodstock and also months and that sort of thing. so i'm afraid my book is by no means unique. there's also a book on 1964, which makes pretty much the same argument as i do, only he sets a year earlier. i don't have been a huge quarrel with that. i wouldn't say i'm the only person who's right about this, the 65 did seem to be the time, not that it was the most romantic. 68 probably was in terms of world shattering, memorable events. but it was a time when the 50s and early 60s rapidly vanished or began to vanish from view and a hurry. the real reason, that's why. >> i think i've pretty much agree with you that the central year is 1965. but there's something more at stake in your book, at least i think so. i want to prove i'm not. in a way we can either be talking about the 60s and just talking about were 65 hits in the 1960s, but there's a claim in the book on 1965 transformed america. so in that statemen